This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/28/2020 at 03:05:20 (UTC).

AIMEE MANUELL VS ISMAEL RIVERA ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/14/2016 AIMEE MANUELL filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ISMAEL RIVERA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6497

  • Filing Date:

    01/14/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MANUELL AIMEE

Defendants and Respondents

RIVERA ISMAEL

RIVERA ISHMAL

DOES 1-50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF D. HESS NPANAH & ASSOC.

YAZDANPANAH HESAM DEAN

Defendant Attorneys

HITCHCOCK MEGAN CLARKE

STRAUS MARVIN JONATHON

 

Court Documents

Association of Attorney

8/16/2019: Association of Attorney

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT ISMAEL RIVERAS VERIFIED RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND HAVE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED

10/2/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT ISMAEL RIVERAS VERIFIED RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND HAVE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEEM ADMISSION)

10/30/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEEM ADMISSION)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEEM ADMISSION)

11/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEEM ADMISSION)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LEAVE TO AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

12/27/2019: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LEAVE TO AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT)

1/6/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT)

Motion re: - MOTION RE: DEFENDANT ISMAEL RIVERA'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF AIMEE MANUELL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHASE R. GOODMAN

2/11/2020: Motion re: - MOTION RE: DEFENDANT ISMAEL RIVERA'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF AIMEE MANUELL'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHASE R. GOODMAN

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2/21/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

6/3/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Minute Order -

4/3/2018: Minute Order -

Proof of Service - No Service - Proof of Service - No Service of Summons

10/29/2018: Proof of Service - No Service - Proof of Service - No Service of Summons

Declaration - Declaration .

10/29/2018: Declaration - Declaration .

Minute Order - Minute Order (Legacy Event Type : OSC RE Dismissal)

10/30/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Legacy Event Type : OSC RE Dismissal)

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

1/29/2019: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (NEGLIGENCE)

1/14/2016: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (NEGLIGENCE)

Minute Order -

6/29/2017: Minute Order -

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal -

8/3/2017: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal -

ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

10/17/2017: ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

32 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/15/2020
  • Hearing10/15/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2020
  • Hearing10/01/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2020
  • Hearing06/24/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Punitive Damages

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Punitive Damages) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2020
  • Docketat 2:31 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/14/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Punitive Damages) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
61 More Docket Entries
  • 08/03/2017
  • DocketMotion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 97; (Trial; Order of Dismissal) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-07-14 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 97; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-06-29 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Aimee Manuell (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2016
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (NEGLIGENCE)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC606497    Hearing Date: March 12, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

aimee manuell,

Plaintiff,

v.

ismael rivera, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC606497

Hearing Date: March 12, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to strike portions of amended complaint

Background

Plaintiff Aimee Manuell (“Plaintiff”) filed this action following a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Ismael Rivera (“Defendant”). Plaintiff seeks punitive damages, and Defendant moves to strike the related prayer and allegations. The motion to strike is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a

motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).) On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)

In ruling on a motion to strike punitive damages, “judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294. (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.) Per Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “Malice is defined in the statute as conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.) “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.” (Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, internal citations and footnotes omitted.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident at issue. (See, e.g., First Amended Complaint, ¶ 13.) “[T]he act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of ‘malice’ under [Civil Code] §3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 890, 892.) Plaintiff has not alleged specific facts suggesting Defendant’s driving under the influence of alcohol was “performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.” In other words, Plaintiff must allege more than simply that Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol.

Conclusion and order

Defendant’s motion to strike is granted with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within ten (10) days of notice. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: March 12, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC606497    Hearing Date: January 06, 2020    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

aimee manuell,

Plaintiff,

v.

ismael rivera, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC606497

Hearing Date: January 6, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE Third amended complaint

Background

Plaintiff Aimee Manuell (“Plaintiff”) alleges she sustained injuries in a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Ismael Rivera (“Defendant”). Plaintiff seeks leave to file a first amended complaint. Defendant opposes the motion, which is granted. However, the Court does so on the condition that Plaintiff stipulates to continue the trial date to October 15, 2020.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-297.)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.132424, a motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment and state the allegations that the moving party proposes to add or delete.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) California Rules of Court, rule 3.124 also requires that the moving party advance a declaration stating the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff relies on Defendant’s discovery responses. In his responses to to Plaintiff’s written discovery, dated October 21, 2019, Defendant admitted that he had been arrested and cited for driving under the influence before the date of the underlying accident. (Declaration of Vania Nemanpour, Exhibit 5.) Then, on November 13, 2019, Defendant served an amended response to Plaintiff’s written discovery, in which he admitted that he was driving under the influence at the time of the underlying accident. (Declaration of Vania Nemanpour, Exhibit 3.) The admission that Defendant was driving under the influence at the time of the underlying collision, coupled with Defendant’s prior instances of driving under the influence, provides a potential basis for a claim for punitive damages against Defendant.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has known that Defendant was cited for driving under the influence at the time of the underlying accident because Defendant was arrested at that time. While this is true, Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff had reason to know of Defendant’s prior convictions until Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s discovery. That Defendant was intoxicated at the time of the underlying collision, standing alone, is not an adequate basis for a claim for punitive damages. “[T]he act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of ‘malice’ under [Civil Code] §3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 890, 892.) Thus, Plaintiff’s discovery of Defendant’s prior citations for driving under the influence is a proper basis for Plaintiff to assert a claim for punitive damages against Defendant.

As Defendant points out, given the April 13, 2020 trial date in this matter, Defendant will not have an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery on Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. Accordingly, the Court conditions the grant of this motion on Plaintiff stipulating to a trial continuance to October 15, 2020 to permit Defendant to defend against Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

Conclusion and order

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is granted. Based upon the parties’ stipulation, the Court advances and vacates the current final status conference and trial dates and sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: October 1, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: October 15, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the new trial date. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: January 6, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC606497    Hearing Date: November 18, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

aimee manuell,

Plaintiff,

v.

ismael rivera, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC606497

Hearing Date: October 30, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel discovery responses

The Court held a hearing on this motion on October 30, 2019. Following a discussion with the attorneys, the Court continued this hearing to November 18, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. and issued a tentative order. In the interim, the record reflects nothing suggesting that Defendants have complied with their discovery obligations. Therefore, the Court’s tentative decision on the motion is to adopt the tentative. Any party who does not appear at the hearing shall waive the right to be heard and shall submit to this tentative order.

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Aimee Manuell (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses from Defendant Ismael Rivera (“Defendant”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”), (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”), and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Plaintiff also moves to deem the Requests for Admissions, Set One (“RFAs”) to be admitted.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed one motion regarding four sets of discovery. The court therefore orders Plaintiff to pay an additional $180 in filing fees. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).) If Plaintiff does not pay the fees, this order shall be unenforceable.

Plaintiff served the discovery on Defendant by mail on June 19, 2019. Defendant’s responses were thus due by July 24, 2019. After Plaintiff granted Defendant’s requests for extensions of time to respond, Defendant provided unverified responses on August 25, 2019. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Accordingly, the motions to compel responses to the RPD, FROG, and SROG are granted per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Defendant is ordered to serve responses to Plaintiff’s RPD, FROG, and SROG, without objections, within 30 days of service of this order.

Likewise, the Court grants the motion to deem the RFAs to have been admitted. Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The Court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) As Defendant has failed to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs, the motion is granted.

The Court has considered Defendant’s opposition but it does not compel a different ruling. Defendant’s counsel argues that counsel made a good faith effort to respond to the interrogatories, because counsel cannot locate Defendant. Counsel cannot satisfy a client’s discovery responses in this manner, especially since responses must be verified by the party. Defendant’s counsel argues that objections need not be verified, but Defendant failed to respond by July 24, 2019, meaning that all objections were waived. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a), 2033.280, subd. (a).) Defendant’s unverified discovery responses did not preserve his objections. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff should have scheduled an informal discovery conference. Defendant is incorrect. The Court only requires an informal discovery conference for motions to compel further responses. Regardless, the Court would have waived the requirement in this case, given that Defendant cannot locate his client and has no ability or authority to respond to discovery.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with the motion. The Court concludes that Defendant’s failure to respond to the discovery is an abuse of the discovery process. The Court awards sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1,200, based upon six hours of attorney time at a rate of $200 per hour, plus four filing fees of $60 each. The Court cannot impose sanctions against Defendant’s counsel, as Plaintiff did not include the request for sanctions against Defendant’s counsel in the notice of motion. (See Blumenthal v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 317, 320.) Moreover, the record is clear that Defendant, and not counsel, is responsible for this situation.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to the RPD, FROG, and SROG are granted per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted. Defendant is deemed to have admitted the truth of all matters specified in the RFAs as of this date.

Defendant is to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,440 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: October 30, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC606497    Hearing Date: October 30, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

aimee manuell,

Plaintiff,

v.

ismael rivera, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC606497

Hearing Date: October 30, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel discovery responses

Plaintiff Aimee Manuell (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses from Defendant Ismael Rivera (“Defendant”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”), (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”), and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Plaintiff also moves to deem the Requests for Admissions, Set One (“RFAs”) to be admitted.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed one motion regarding four sets of discovery. The court therefore orders Plaintiff to pay an additional $180 in filing fees. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).) If Plaintiff does not pay the fees, this order shall be unenforceable.

Plaintiff served the discovery on Defendant by mail on June 19, 2019. Defendant’s responses were thus due by July 24, 2019. After Plaintiff granted Defendant’s requests for extensions of time to respond, Defendant provided unverified responses on August 25, 2019. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Accordingly, the motions to compel responses to the RPD, FROG, and SROG are granted per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Defendant is ordered to serve responses to Plaintiff’s RPD, FROG, and SROG, without objections, within 30 days of service of this order.

Likewise, the Court grants the motion to deem the RFAs to have been admitted. Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The Court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) As Defendant has failed to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs, the motion is granted.

The Court has considered Defendant’s opposition but it does not compel a different ruling. Defendant’s counsel argues that counsel made a good faith effort to respond to the interrogatories, because counsel cannot locate Defendant. Counsel cannot satisfy a client’s discovery responses in this manner, especially since responses must be verified by the party. Defendant’s counsel argues that objections need not be verified, but Defendant failed to respond by July 24, 2019, meaning that all objections were waived. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a), 2033.280, subd. (a).) Defendant’s unverified discovery responses did not preserve his objections. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff should have scheduled an informal discovery conference. Defendant is incorrect. The Court only requires an informal discovery conference for motions to compel further responses. Regardless, the Court would have waived the requirement in this case, given that Defendant cannot locate his client and has no ability or authority to respond to discovery.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with the motion. The Court concludes that Defendant’s failure to respond to the discovery is an abuse of the discovery process. The Court awards sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1,200, based upon six hours of attorney time at a rate of $200 per hour, plus four filing fees of $60 each. The Court cannot impose sanctions against Defendant’s counsel, as Plaintiff did not include the request for sanctions against Defendant’s counsel in the notice of motion. (See Blumenthal v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 317, 320.) Moreover, the record is clear that Defendant, and not counsel, is responsible for this situation.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to the RPD, FROG, and SROG are granted per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted. Defendant is deemed to have admitted the truth of all matters specified in the RFAs as of this date.

Defendant is to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,440 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: October 30, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court